People v Mones

2019 NY Slip Op 00505 [168 AD3d 1288]

January 24, 2019

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 6, 2019

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Adam Mones, Appellant.

Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Kristin L. Hackett of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered June1, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the seconddegree.

In 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with burglaryin the second degree and admitted to violating his probation. The charges stemmed from aresidential burglary that occurred in October 2011. Upon appeal, this Court reversed thejudgment of conviction and remitted the matter to County Court for further proceedings (People v Mones, 130 AD3d 1244[2015]).

In 2015, defendant was charged in an eight-count indictment with various crimes relating tothe 2011 burglary, including burglary in the second degree. Pursuant to a negotiated pleaagreement, defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the second degree andadmitted to violating the terms of his probation with the understanding that there would be asentencing cap of eight years—together with five years of postreleasesupervision—and that the sentence imposed upon the burglary conviction would runconcurrently with the sentence imposed upon the violation of probation (11/3 to 4years). The plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal. After executing a writtenappeal waiver, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and admitted that heviolated his probation. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, County Court thereaftersentenced defendant as a second felony offender to a prison term of 61/2 yearsupon the burglary conviction—said sentence to run concurrently with the agreed-uponterm of imprisonment for the violation of probation. Defendant now appeals.

The sole argument raised by defendant upon appeal—that the sentence imposed isharsh and excessive—is precluded by defendant's unchallenged waiver of the right toappeal (see People v Knight, 164AD3d 957, 957-958 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1005 [2018]; People v Valachovic, 163 AD3d1351, 1351-1352 [2018]; People vChapman, 160 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2018]; People v St. Mary, 157 AD3d 1168, 1168-1169 [2018], lvdenied 31 NY3d 986 [2018]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.